Mueller disappoints Dems

The Mueller report finds no evidence of collusion, and I can't say I'm surprised.  Here's what I wrote back in July of 2017 regarding the notorious "Tr*mp Tower meeting":

As I've previously observed, Russia never needed any help from Tr*mp and Co. to interfere in the American election — but certainly had no qualms about compromising individuals who might become part of a future Tr*mp Administration.  Given the high levels of both cupidity and incompetence on the Tr*mp team, the Russians didn't have to try too hard.

This doesn't mean Putin lacks kompromat on Our President — and I don't mean the "piss tape."  The Republican base has shown itself totally willing to ignore Tr*mp's sexual peccadillos, and paying hookers to pee on a bed isn't even a crime.  Money laundering, on the other hand, is a crime, and developers of high-end real estate are especially well-situated to participate.  Ongoing investigations of Deutche Bank just might turn up evidence that does some real damage to our Grifter in Chief — albeit most Americans can't comprehend financial crimes much more complex than bank robbery.

In the meanwhile, Our President can chalk up a victory — a victory that will make it far more difficult for Democrats to use future investigatory revelations to their political advantage.  The disappointing fact is that  Tr*mp never was a "foreign agent" — he's just one more corrupt businessman willing to make a quick buck.

College Admissions Q & A

Q.  Was anybody even remotely surprised by the recent college admissions scandal?

 A.   You must be kidding me.

Q.  Why would a coach at an important school want to take a bribe?

A.  Jealousy, pure and simple.  Resentment of the salary pulled down by the football coach.

Q.  If the kids were chronic "underachievers" even with all the private tutoring and fancy private schooling their wealthy parents must have given them, how did their parents expect them to graduate from a top-tier school?

A.  They were paying full tuition — of course they were going to graduate.  It's much harder to get into a top school than it is to graduate from it.

Red-baiting returns!

Anybody who came of age during the Cold War will remember "red-baiting" — the practice of tarring liberals and their ideas with the brush of "communism."  Needless to say, "communism" and "socialism" were used interchangeably; so even a popular socialist program like Medicare (1966) was attacked as a threat to "democracy" by "the red menace."

Red-baiting died down somewhat with the collapse of the Soviet Union, but if you're too young to remember it at its worst, don't worry — because it's back, and likely to play a major role in the 2020 election cycle.  It was the central thrust of the President's recent speech to CPAC, and most of his party already is on-board.

n truth, totalitarian communism has more in common with monopolistic capitalism than with democratic socialism.  In one, a tiny elite controls the government, which controls business and industry.  In the other, a tiny elite controls business and industry, which controls the government.  The Soviets needed more democracy; the United States needs more socialism.

The new red-baiting may be a good sign: an indicator that socialist ideas have become thinkable again.  The “Green New Deal,” “Medicare for All,” and free higher education are mainstream ideas today, and steadily growing more popular.  There is reason to hope that red-baiting will be far less effective in today’s politics than it was in the past.

Ilhan Omar

Let's get one thing straight: criticism of Israel is not the equivalent of antisemitism, and criticism of AIPAC is even less so.  It has been years since the American Israel Public Affairs Committee could be said to lobby on behalf of the State of Israel.  Today, it lobbies on behalf of Israel's Likud Party and, more specifically, on behalf of Bibi Netanyahu.

“It’s all about the Benjamins baby!”
It's true that AIPAC itself makes no political contributions: it merely "suggests" that favored candidates for office enjoy the largess of wealthy Jewish (and Evangelical) supporters – and those supporters write substantial checks to favored candidates and their superPACs.  (I can't help thinking that part of the problem with Omar's remark was that "Benjamin" sounds like a Jewish name.)  Pelosi forced an apology for that one, even though much of the uproar was motivated by prejudice against Muslims.

"Allegiance to a foreign country"
Dual loyalty is a "Jewish stereotype" that, frankly, I'd never heard of before.  I do remember people questioning whether John F. Kennedy would be more loyal to the Constitution or the Pope, but somehow I missed the part about Jews and Israel.  (Granted, my Hebrew school taught more Zionism than Hebrew, so I guess it's plausible.)  Notwithstanding all that, "allegiance" was a very poor choice of words.

Congressional support for Israel, not limited to Jewish members, is more a conditioned response than a true allegiance.  The US has supported Israel since 1948, usually with ample justification; but Netanyahu's Israel has become a different country.  The Palestinian "territories" are governed like the bantustans of apartheid South Africa, and Bibi is forming political alliances with open racists — not just the closeted ones.  This is happening with the encouragement and support of American conservatives, not all of whom are Jews.

The rebuke of Ilhan Omar seems to be intended as a warning to other young, progressive Democrats who might have the temerity to suggest American support for Israel might become a little more conditional.  I hope they don't knuckle under: it really is time for a change.